UPPSALA UNIVERSITY. lovo. Journal of Slavic Languages and Literatures. Nr 50, Department of Modern Languages

Transkript

1 UPPSALA UNIVERSITY lovo Nr 50, 2010 Department of Modern Languages

2 UPPSALA UNIVERSITY Department of Modern Languages Slovo (Uppsala), 2010, No. 50 ISSN:

3 CONTENTS EDITORIAL: SLOVO S NEW HOME: THE WEB 3 SLOVO SOME (VITAL) STATISTICS ROGER GYLLIN 5 WESTERN BULGARIAN OR MACEDONIAN? THE DOBREJŠO GOSPEL (XIII C.) CYNTHIA M. VAKARELIYSKA 13 VALENSBASERAD SEMANTISK REPRESENTATION LENNART LÖNNGREN 27 CENTRAL SLOVAK AND KAJKAVIAN STRUCTURAL CONVERGENCES: A TENTATIVE SURVEY JUHANI NUORLUOTO 37 FRÅN BORIS GODUNOV TILL GUSTAV II ADOLF: ÖVERSÄTTAREN HANS FLÖRICH I TSARENS OCH SVENSKA KRONANS TJÄNST INGRID MAIER, HEIKO DROSTE 47 SVENSK MYNDIGHETSINFORMATION PÅ SERBISKA, KROATISKA OCH BOSNISKA THOMAS ROSÉN 67 FEMMES FATALES POLSKIEJ WSI: SEKSUALIZM A KONWENCJE SPOŁECZNO- LITERACKIE W POWIEŚCIACH ORZESZKOWEJ, REYMONTA I DĄBROWSKIEJ MAŁGORZATA ANNA PACKALÉN PARKMAN 87 RYSK ROMANTIK PÅ SVENSKA: HUR DEN RYSKA ROMANTIKEN INTRODUCERADES PÅ SVENSKA OCH VARFÖR NILS HÅKANSON 107 BOCKHORNET EN BULGARISK BERÄTTELSE MELLAN SAGAN OCH SÄGNEN DANIELA ASSENOVA 125 FORTY YEARS OF SLAVIC STUDIES: SVEN GUSTAVSSON S BIBLIOGRAPHY MY SVENSSON, OLGA KLAUBER 141 BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR

4

5 Slovo (Uppsala), 2010, No. 50, pp. 3-4 ISSN: X Editorial: Slovo s New Home - the Web There is no substitute for holding a real journal in your hands. On this we all agree. However, with the advent of the Internet many academic and non-academic journals have made the transition from paper to electronic format. Slovo is no exception: the web will be its future home. It all started on a Monday in November 2009, during the regular advanced seminar of the Slavists at Uppsala University. After six years of hibernation, and after discussing the alternatives of letting Slovo hibernate forever or having it reappear on the Internet, a decision was made to revive the old, established and well-known journal using the publishing form of the future. The change in the publishing praxis of the journal also reflects a generation change among Uppsala Slavists. For centuries, since the Gutenberg press produced the printed word, publishers have played a crucial role between the work of authors and their readers. Now, electronic publishing of scholarly papers on the Internet offers rapid and universal access. These are the main reasons for changing the publication format of the journal. While discussing the destiny of Slovo, no one (at the seminar) was aware that the next Slovo issue would be the 50 th one. It was a coincidence that the transition to the web would occur in an anniversary issue. The new format and the anniversary provide an excellent opportunity for celebration, and also give a possibility for some explanations. To begin with, the experienced Slovo reader will notice the change in the journal s name, where a new logo is incorporated in the letter S and the subtitle, Journal of Slavic Languages and Literatures, is added to the original name Slovo (Uppsala). Both the logo and the subtitle symbolize the journal s dedication to the field of Slavic linguistics and literatures in the broadly defined context of historical and synchronic research. Moreover, as Slovo appears to be a relatively common title in that field, it seems reasonable to add distinguishing characteristics, including the logo and the subtitle, to clearly separate it from other periodicals. A significant change in the policy of the journal is its invited contributions from scholars not associated with Uppsala University. Previously, only contributions from scholars directly connected with Uppsala University were published. Our goal from now on is to have one invited external contributor for each issue. The value of a journal lies in the quality of the articles it publishes. First and foremost, this quality comes from the submitting authors, but also from the scholars who voluntarily review these submissions. There is also a considerable time investment on the part of the editors and the advisory board. However, Slovo s transition to an electronically published journal would not have been possible without the technical support of two graduate students in computer science at Uppsala 3

6 Slovo (Uppsala), 2010, No. 50 University: Yunyun Zhu, who created the logo, and Tengjiao Cai, who designed and implemented the homepage. Finally, there are you, the readers, to whom we dedicate our 50 th anniversary issue. This issue aims to combine the tradition with the innovations. The background of the journal and its publication history is presented in an article by Roger Gyllin, one of Slovo s pioneers. Another key contributor is Lennart Lönngren, who is by far the most experienced Slovo-editor. Our first external contributor is Cynthia Vakareliyska from University of Oregon (USA), one of the world s leading authorities on medieval Slavic gospels. All other contributors in this issue are active in the field of Slavic languages at the Department of Modern Languages (Uppsala University). Ingrid Maier, Małgorzata Anna Packalén Parkman and Thomas Rosén are all senior researchers who have previously published many articles in Slovo, while Daniela Assenova and Nils Håkanson are publishing for the first time in the journal. Juhani Nuorluoto has been the chair of the Slavic Languages division of the Department since To emphasize this succession, we also are publishing the complete bibliography of the previous chair of Slavic languages, Sven Gustavsson. The articles in the current issue represent the broad range of research at the Department, thematically, methodologically and language-wise. The editors wish to thank all the contributors for their hard work and patience throughout the long maturing process of this special anniversary and inaugural electronic issue. Keeping to tradition, we have decided to publish the articles separately, but combined to form a whole issue. So even though Slovo is on the web, you still can read it the traditional way! Daniela Assenova 4

7 Slovo (Uppsala), 2010, No. 50, pp ISSN: X Slovo Some (Vital) Statistics Roger Gyllin Department of Modern Languages, Uppsala University Abstract The inaugural issue of Uppsala University s Slavistics journal Slovo appeared in This paper discusses the reasons and ambitions behind the initiation of Slovo, followed by an overview of the history of the journal. Forty-nine issues were published over a 32-year period, from The paper provides basic information on the journal s editors, contributors, publication frequency, scholarly fields, types of contributions, and language of publication during this period. Over the years, Slovo developed from a journal published exclusively in Swedish and intended only for a Nordic audience to a more international journal with about 50% of its contributions written in non-nordic languages. 1. Background Forty years ago, options were limited for any Swedish Slavist who wanted to publish a scholarly article. The four existing Slavic departments, at the universities in Uppsala, Lund, Gothenburg and Stockholm, each issued a monograph series; Uppsala s had the intimidating name Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Studia Slavica Upsaliensia. These series published mainly doctoral dissertations. Articles up to sixteen pages in length could be published in Scando-Slavica, an international journal issued as a yearbook by the Association of Scandinavian Slavists and Baltologists. And, of course, there was also the option of submitting a paper to one of the existing Slavistics journals outside Scandinavia. If, however, a Swedish Slavist wanted to publish in Swedish, or to publish a medium-length article (i.e., too short for a monograph but too long for Scando-Slavica or another journal with a similar publishing policy), or to publish a work in progress, there existed no suitable publication fora. Nor was there any way of publishing the talks given on specialized themes at (mini-)symposia. 5

8 Slovo (Uppsala), 2010, No. 50 With the advent of a new generation of serious scholars in the Slavic field around 1970, this lack of publishing opportunities was beginning to make itself felt, not least at Uppsala University. Against this background, discussions about founding a Swedish Slavistics journal became a common theme amongst young Uppsala Slavists during coffee breaks and post-seminars. Such a journal needed to be less pretentious, but also more daring, than the high-quality but traditional Scando-Slavica and its Continental counterparts that adorned the Department s journal shelves at the time. It needed to be more directed toward, or at least open to, modern linguistics, which at about this time was somewhat belatedly making a breakthrough in Sweden. Although, in accordance with most scholars main interests, the journal needed to focus on linguistics, we did not want to exclude contributions from the fields of literature and cultural history. We made contact with some of our colleagues in Gothenburg and Stockholm (in those days the Slavic Department in Lund lived an isolated existence). Their first question was, not unreasonably, how the new journal would be financed. Although in certain ways the funding system at Swedish universities at that time was better than the one that was later introduced in the early 1990 s, each department was allotted only a very small annual amount to dispose of according to its own needs and whims, e.g. for journal subscriptions and department publications. This meant that additional funds had to be found outside the departments. We approached Uppsala University Vice-Chancellor Torgny Segerstedt about the financing. He promised support for the first year, but no further. Since we had found no other means for financing the planned Swedish Slavistics journal, our ambitions were lowered to publishing an Uppsala Slavic Department journal of modest outward appearance, which had to be self-financed through library subscriptions and sales of individual copies. 2. Editors Although the idea of publishing Slovo had originated mainly from a group of young scholars who had either recently defended their Ph.D. dissertations or were active graduate students, it was considered important that in order to gain prestige for the new journal, the first editors should be established scholars of the older generation. Carin Davidsson and Karin Pontoppidan Sjövall, both docents, were appointed the first editors, and continued for the first seven issues. In 1975 they were succeeded by Lennart Lönngren and Lars Steensland, who co-edited Slovo up to and including issue 24. From issue 25, Roger Gyllin succeeded Steensland, and Lönngren and Gyllin then co-edited the journal for the next eleven issues, from Lönngren s long editorship ended in 1994, when he took the position of Professor of Russian at Tromsø University in Norway. 6

9 Roger Gyllin Slovo Some (Vital) Statistics In total there were twelve Slovo editors over the 32 years from the first issue in 1972 through the 49th in 2003 (Table 1). Of these, Lennart Lönngren s service is particularly outstanding: he was the editor and driving force behind 35 issues (Nos. 8 42). Lennart Lönngren 35 Lars Steensland 17 Roger Gyllin 11 Ingrid Maier 8 Carin Davidsson 7 Karin Pontoppidan-Sjövall 7 Magnus Klaman 2 Gunilla Fredriksson 1 Sven Gustavsson 1 Marousia Ludwika Korolczyk 1 Thomas Rosén 1 Andrzej Nils Uggla 1 Table 1. Editors: number of issues 3. Contributors A total of 61 scholars contributed articles to Slovo over the years as authors or coauthors. The most prolific contributors were Lennart Lönngren and Ingrid Maier with 16 and 15 articles respectively, followed by Olga Klauber and Małgorzata Anna Packalén, with ten contributions each. Authors with four or more contributions are shown in Table 2. Lennart Lönngren 16 Ingrid Maier 15 Olga Klauber 10 Małgorzata Anna Packalén 10 Roger Gyllin 9 Lars Steensland 9 Sven Gustavsson 7 Andrzej Nils Uggla 7 Lennart Hagåsen 6 Gösta Lavén 6 Jerzy Kamiński 6 Milan Bílý 5 Ludmila Ferm 5 Lennart Kjellberg 4 Tamara Lönngren 4 Table 2. Authors with four or more contributions. 7

10 Slovo (Uppsala), 2010, No Publication frequency The first issue of Slovo saw the light of day in It contained a single contribution, Lennart Lönngren s A semantic analysis of conclusive verbs of action in Russian, written in Swedish. The second issue also contained a single contribution, a theoretical monograph-like treatment of verb stem formation and conjugation by Nils Bertil Thelin. Following a hiatus in 1973, another 47 issues were published during the 30 years from 1974 to Usually a single issue appeared annually, but five issues were published in each of the years 1975, 1981, and No issues appeared in 1996, 2001, and 2002 (Figure 1). Issues No Figure 1. Publication frequency of Slovo The 49 issues of Slovo totaled approximately 3,570 pages. An average year saw about 100 pages, usually within a single volume. The year 1986 stands out as unique, with well over 400 pages (Figure 2). Pages PP Figure 2. Number of pages for each year Disregarding front fly-leafs, contents pages and blank pages, and pages enumerating earlier issues, this made a total of about 3,150 pages of scholarly research. 8

11 Roger Gyllin Slovo Some (Vital) Statistics 5. Scholarly fields As mentioned above, although Slovo was initiated by linguists, it has always been open to other scholarly fields. However, it took several issues until the first literary studies were published, in issue No. 6 (1975). Later, bibliographies were included, as well as studies in cultural history and other areas, and a number of book review articles. In fact, annual bibliographies became a recurring feature of Slovo, listing 25 years of publications by Uppsala Slavists. Three special bibliographies also were published, on Czech and Slovak works of fiction in Swedish translation (issue 8), works by Puškin in Swedish translation (issue 47), and Lennart Kjellberg s works, in connection with his 70th birthday celebration (issue 27). This feature of Slovo was particularly enhanced by Olga Klauber s meticulous bibliographical work. The annual page distribution of works in linguistics, literary studies, bibliographies and other scholarly fields is shown in Figure 3. The percentages given here are approximate, since although most contributions unequivocally belong to one of these fields, some overlap. The term Linguistics is used here rather broadly, including not only modern linguistics proper, but also philological works, translation studies, stylistics studies of works of fiction, and pedagogical studies on language. 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Miscellaneous Bibliographies Literary studies Linguistics Figure 3. Distribution of scholarly fields in each year As can be seen from Figure 3, issues dedicated 100% to a single field appeared only in four years (linguistics in 1972, 1974 and 1979, and bibliographies in 1999). The data in Figure 3 is summarized in Figure 4, which shows that linguistics articles dominated over the years, consisting of well over half of the total number of published pages. 9

12 Slovo (Uppsala), 2010, No. 50 Linguistics Literary studies Bibliographies Miscellaneous Figure 4. Total distribution of scholarly fields Types of contributions As mentioned in section 1 above, Slovo was designed as a forum for scholarly articles, without a maximum page limit. Nonetheless, as noted in section 3, the first two issues consisted of monographs, both of which were theoretical works on Modern Russian (55 and 120 pages in length, respectively). The launching by the department, however, of Uppsala Slavic Papers (in 1978) and Slaviska specialordlistor (in 1985) resulted in the eventual referral of monographs and specialized glossaries to these two series. Thus both later editions of Lars Steensland s Swedish-Russian/Russian-Swedish bird name lists (originally published in Slovo issue 24, 1981) and later lists (11 so far) have appeared in Slaviska specialordlistor. An editorial preface to Slovo s issue 25 (1982) specifically stated that monograph-type studies would be published in the future by Uppsala Slavic Papers; the issue, however, included Baldur Sigurðsson s monograph-like classification of verbal prefixes in Modern Czech, which was over 50 pages long. An exception was also made in 1989 for Gösta Lavéns licentiate thesis Ideal and reality in Baratynskij s poetical world, written in Swedish. 7. Language of publication As mentioned in section 1, Slovo was originally intended for articles published in Swedish and for distribution only within the Nordic countries, i.e., Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden, where Swedish could easily be understood. Accordingly, the first 14 issues were in Swedish. The first issue to include another language was No. 15 (1978), which contained an English-language article by Roger Gyllin, The role of unconscious assumptions: A concrete case. Three issues contained articles entirely in other languages than Swedish: Nos. 20 (1981, Polish), 33 (1986, Russian, Bulgarian, Polish and English) and 37 (1989, English). 10

13 Roger Gyllin Slovo Some (Vital) Statistics Swedish 91 Russian 18 Polish 15 English 13 German 4 Bulgarian 2 Czech 1 French 1 Table 3. Languages in which articles and reviews were published in Over the years, Slovo published articles in 8 different languages (Table 3; the figures given here, and in Figure 5, do not, however, include bibliographical works, which can be considered "langauge neutral"). 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Languages , 2003 Other Russian English Polish Swedish Figure 5. Distribution of languages in which articles and reviews were published in As is shown in Figure 5, beginning in the mid-1980 s, about half of the contributions published by Slovo were in languages other than Swedish, mainly Russian, Polish, and English. The main reason for this change was the increasing number of faculty members who were not native Swedish speakers; another reason was the desire by contributors to reach an audience for their scholarly work outside the Nordic countries. 8. Concluding remarks Slovo was launched 40 years ago, in what now seems a very different world. As it now reaches its 50th issue, under the new editorship of Daniela Assenova and My Svensson, it is fitting that what was once a journal published entirely in Swedish and for a purely Nordic audience is going online as a journal published mainly in English. Thus, from a modest beginning, with its new and high ambitions, Slovo has eventually become part of our ever more globalized world. 11

14

15 Slovo (Uppsala), 2010, No. 50, pp ISSN: X Western Bulgarian or Macedonian? The Dobrejšo Gospel (XIII c.) Cynthia M. Vakareliyska Department of Linguistics, University of Oregon, USA Abstract Using the thirteenth-century Dobrejšo Gospel ( D ) as an example, the article examines issues of geography and chronology that come into play in attempts to classify medieval manuscripts as Macedonian vs. western Bulgarian on the basis of orthographic and lexical features. The paper demonstrates that with the exception of the orthographic substitution of o for etymological strong back jer, and a single lexical variant, both of which can be traced to an early shared ancestor of D and its two closest relatives, each of the orthographic features of D that corresponds to a Macedonian phonological feature can also be found in non-transitional dialects of the southwestern territory of contemporary Bulgaria. 1. Issues of Space and Time 1 Determining whether a given post-old Church Slavonic Central Balkan manuscript should be classified as Macedonian or western Bulgarian is a messy task, but an unavoidable one in the preparation of a diplomatic edition of such a manuscript. This article sets forth the issues and obstacles encountered in attempting to make this determination in connection with the preparation of a second corrected edition of the thirteenth-century Dobrejšo Gospel ( D ). 2 The provenance of D is not straightforward, particularly because any colophon it may have had is now lost. Despodova and Slaveva include D in their 1988 catalogue of 1 This article is based on a paper presented on February 12, 2010 at the conference Slavic Languages: Time and Contingency at the University of California at Berkeley. The following abbreviations are used here: ac. pres. part. = active present participle; acc. = accusative; aor. = aorist; du. = dual; f. = feminine; gen. = genitive; indef. = indefinite; instr. = instrumental; loc. = locative; masc. = masculine; mis. fol. = missing folio; nom. = nominative; pl. = plural; sg. = singular. 2 The second edition corrects errors in Conev s 1906 edition and provides complete liturgical rubrics. I believe Conev s thirteenth-century dating is correct; see also the early thirteenth-century dating by Christova, Karadžova, and Ikonomova

16 Slovo (Uppsala), 2010, No. 50 Macedonian manuscripts, and Koneski cites D once in his 1965 history of the Macedonian language; on the other hand, Bulgarian scholars, beginning with Conev consider D western Bulgarian (see, for example, Christova, Karadžova and Ikonomova 1982:24). D contains a number of unmistakable orthographic Macedonianisms, in the sense of Macedonian-type features, which appear sporadically in an otherwise relatively conservative Bulgarian Church Slavonic text. Whether these features are sufficient to classify D as a Macedonian manuscript depends on a determination of how the term Macedonian should be applied to a thirteenth-century manuscript. In turn, reaching this determination requires consideration of certain major issues of space and time Geography Of course, when D was written, the Bulgarian state extended to the west well beyond Ohrid and there was no Macedonian state. In this sense, any thirteenth-century manuscript produced within the territory of the modern-day Republic of Macedonia can be viewed as Bulgarian. But in describing the dialect features that a thirteenth-century manuscript reflects as Macedonian, should the term Macedonian refer to dialects within the geographic territory that is now the Republic of Macedonia? Conev's 1906 analysis of D distinguishes between Macedonian and western Bulgarian dialects, but what Conev meant by Macedonian, of course, was what he understood to be the territory of Macedonia at the turn of the twentieth century. This is clear from Conev s assertion that D s orthographic features reflect a western Bulgarian dialect that he situates somewhere between the Pčinja and Bregalnica rivers, and somewhere between towns of Kratovo, Kočani, Štip and Veles, all of which now are in eastern Macedonia Chronology Even if it is established broadly that the term Macedonian refers to dialects within the territory of the present-day Republic of Macedonia, should a thirteenth-century manuscript be classified as Macedonian because it contains orthographic features that match phonological features of modern Macedonian dialects? In other words, is it realistic to assume that all modern Macedonian dialects preserve features of the thirteenth-century vernaculars that preceded them and were not subject to phonological change? Moreover, should the determination of a medieval manuscript as Macedonian vis-àvis western Bulgarian rest on the features that the last copyist first wrote into the manuscript, or should it also include the features of earlier antigraphs that were copied into the manuscript? 3 Usually there is no way to distinguish with any success which 3 Following Capaldo (1981), I use the term antigraph (Gr. response, copy ) for any hypothetical direct ancestor of the manuscript in question. I prefer antigraph to protograph in reference to Slavic ancestor 14

17 Cynthia M. Vakareliyska Western Bulgarian or Macedonian? orthographic features of a manuscript are original to its copyist and which were from his immediate antigraph. This distinction can be made, however, to a great extent for D, because it is unique among Bulgarian and Macedonian gospel manuscripts in having two identified close relatives, the Banica Gospel (B) 4 and the Curzon Gospel (C), 5 both of which probably were written a century later. 6 But should the determination of whether D is western Bulgarian or Macedonian be based solely on orthographic features unique to D, or should it include those Macedonian-type features that D shares with one or both of its close relatives? If most or all of D s Macedonianisms co-occur in C and D in the same textual locations, indicating that these were features of their shared ancestor (DBC), should all three manuscripts be classified as Macedonian, regardless of where they themselves may have been written? 7 Or, alternatively, if most or all of the Macedonianisms in C and B are shared in the same locations with D, should all three simply be considered western Bulgarian manuscripts that reflect an earlier Macedonian tradition in their shared prehistory? And finally, even if, among the three manuscripts, only D were to contain occasional Macedonianisms, can D be classified as Macedonian on that basis alone, or can it be said at most that Macedonianisms have appeared at some time in D s prehistory, most likely in an apograph of DBC? 2. Orthographic Issues Even setting aside the broad issues set out above, whether a given manuscript is Macedonian or western Bulgarian hinges on a determination of the types of features that can be identified as indisputably Macedonian, as opposed to western Bulgarian, in origin. There are no such features on the textual level, because so far there are no identified families of post-ocs Macedonian gospel manuscripts: in fact, the only gospel manuscript with Macedonian features that has been identified as a member of a specific family is the Carpinian Gospel (Despodova 1995), which, on the basis of its manuscripts of post-ocs gospels, for several reasons. First, Slavic liturgical manuscripts are translations from Greek sources, and thus they are not protographs in the sense of being original works. Second, the earliest hypothetical shared ancestor that can be reconstructed in any detail for later related medieval Slavic liturgical manuscripts is not the original version of the Slavic translation from Greek, but a distant apograph, or descendant, of the original version that has undergone extensive revision. Finally, the term protograph seems inappropriate for a shared ancestor manuscript such as DBC, which was compiled from two or more separate textual traditions (see Vakareliyska 2008, pp. 2-9). 4 Cyrillo-Methodian National Library, Sofia, No. 847; transcription edition by Dogramadžieva and Rajkov British Library, Add. Ms 39628, transcription edition by Vakareliyska C is datable to c. 1354, the first year listed in its Easter/Sexagesima table. While most Bulgarian scholars date B to the thirteenth century, I prefer to date it more conservatively to the fourteenth century on the basis of its rather unorthodox palaeographic features. 7 D itself clearly was not the ancestor manuscript for C and B, as the latter share some segments of standard text that D omits. 15

18 Slovo (Uppsala), 2010, No. 50 textual features, is considered a member of the Serbian Miroslav Gospel family of long lectionaries. On the linguistic level, no identifiably Macedonian morphological or syntactic features show up in thirteenth-century manuscripts either: the only recognizably Macedonian features of manuscripts of this period are orthographic and lexical. It can be assumed that to some extent, these orthographic features reflect some underlying vernacular or vernaculars, but it cannot be assumed that Bulgarian or Macedonian scribes of this period tried to apply orthographic rules that reflected their own vernacular pronunciation. As an example, most thirteenth-century Macedonian and western Bulgarian manuscripts preserve both jusy (ѫ, ѧ), even though the nasal vowels that these graphemes were originally meant to represent had disappeared by then from most dialects. It must also be considered that less confident copyists slavishly strove to reproduce the spelling of their immediate antigraph letter by letter. In such cases, spellings that reveal the copyist s vernacular occasionally show up in slips of the pen, but they are generally repressed in favor of the orthographic variants in the immediate antigraph, which more often than not reflect a different dialect or dialects. For this reason it is not at all unusual for a thirteenth-century manuscript to reflect orthographically several strata of different dialects, a fact that makes comparison with modern dialect isoglosses not particularly helpful. Another complication is the development of orthographic conventions that were not intended to reflect phonological reality, the best-known example being the widespread Central Balkan convention, adopted from Glagolitic, of representing both etymological ja and etymological ä with jat (ѣ). The use of this convention by a given scribe does not necessarily mean, of course, that the dialect of the scribe merged the Common Slavic vowel sounds *ja and *ä. In some post-ocs manuscripts, the distribution of jusy follows orthographic patterns that are clearly not phonologically based. Some scribes routinely spell the front nasal vowel *ę as ѫ immediately after a palatal consonant, particularly when writing the third-person plural aorist -šę. Although this spelling convention coincides with the pronunciation in some Macedonian dialects (Koneski 1965:40), this does not mean that it reflects a feature of the dialect of the scribe who uses it, or indeed a feature of any dialect, if the spelling was adopted as a strictly superficial orthographic convention by the copyist or the scriptorium. Other scribes intentionally alternate the jusy so that neither jus appears twice consecutively in a line, a convention that clearly does not reflect a phonological feature of any known Slavic dialect. On a separate level, an orthographic convention that is associated with a particular dialect may appear in a manuscript only in the spelling of a particular word, and it may be used for that same word in various manuscripts that otherwise have different orthographic systems. An example is B s consistent spelling пѧтель for OCS pĕtelь, substituting ѧ for ѣ (Lunt 1984:63; Vakareliyska 2008, vol. II:148). This 16